From: Al & Patty Jacobson (abj@the-bridge.net)
Date: Tue Jan 30 2001 - 00:51:57 EST
To Steve and other responders:
I can't help but agree with Steve. There is no literal chiasmus in these
passages, and Greek writers were perfectly capable of chiasmus when they
intended. But they didn't hide it. To do so would spoil the effect, which
generally was an effect produced when people heard the passage read. It was
produced by hearing the passage pronounced. It wasn't just a mental sort of
connection. Even in the OT parallelisms, examples of chiasmus and other
examples of style are pretty obvious to the readers and listeners in the
original language. I mean, for example, a specimen of chiasmus in Hebrew
doesn't require an English translation to make one who reads Hebrew
understand that it was a speciman of chiasmus. But we are expected to
believe that those who read Greek need an English or other translation of
this passage to see correctly that this is a specimen of chiasmus in Greek!
The justification explaining it as some sort of Hebraism is weak. If
Matthew were written in Hebrew originally and translated into Greek (as many
believe), one would expect to find the Greek syntax more accurately
expressing the original Hebrew chiasmus that was intended and presumably was
syntactically clear, wouldn't one? The arguments presented about Hebraisms
in the reference literature often simply present opinions so subjective as
to what is or isn't a Hebraism in the NT(as in this case) as to be
impossible to prove or disprove. Apparently we are supposed to take their
word for it just because they are clever enough to contort the phrases to
fit their theory. Most that have been reviewed on this list serve simply
beg the question and state that one or more of the passages under discussion
here is an example of chiasmus. (The reference in Moulton's Grammar, Volume
III page 346 and 347 is a good example of this.) Just because the opinions
are contained in scholarly reference works doesn't strengthen the argument.
Perhaps the possibility of finding Hebraisms heretofore missed by
generations of scholars tends to present a irresistable opportunity ( what a
potentially fertile for publishing!) for scholars trying to find something
new about which to write. All the more fertile if one can establish a
theory as fact simply by endless repetition and circular cross referencing.
As to the argument about the verb hRHXWSIN, until someone can come up with
some actual usage from Greek literature that shows the verb (and/or its
compounds) to be used more commonly with dogs than with swine, the argument
should be accepted with less than a grain of salt. As Harold Holmyard noted
>You may be right, but it is interesting that BAGD notes that RHGNUMI is
>used of a swine tearing in pieces with his teeth in Aesop, Fable 408 H.
>The swine in the fable is tearing apart a dog (KUWN). So perhaps both
>animals could tear in pieces the pearl thrower.
In fact, no one has cited such a passage from Greek literature using
hRHGNUMI for the action of dogs (other than this passage, which of course,
begs the question). It seems to me the burden of proof should be on those
who want to depart from the plain (literal) grammatical/syntactical/semantic
meaning of the text. (It would not surprise me, by the way if one could.
But I'm sure one could also find more for other beasts such as swine, lions,
etc.).
None of this would be so important (certainly not, IMO, in this particular
case) except that this type of approach has a way of spreading into other
areas. Consider, for example, the statement Nigel Turner makes at the
bottom of page 346 in Moulton's Grammar, Volume III. "Not only does this
study help with the text, but also in interpretation." I hope that
interpretations (upon which after all dogma is based) are grounded on more
cogent evidence.
allen jacobson
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Craig Miller [mailto:stevencraigmiller@home.com]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:11 AM
To: Biblical Greek
Subject: [b-greek] Re: "Syntactical Chiasmus"
To: Stephen C. Carlson,
<< What makes you think that "normal Greek syntax" is overriden in Matt
7:6? Putting aside Philem 5 (which is an arguable case), I don't quite
understand the objection to treating Matt 7:6 as a chiasmus, when other
factors, such as the senses of KATAPATHSOUSIN and hRHCWSIN, so indicate (as
supported by Davies & Allison in their magisterial commentary). Perhaps a
clarification of the objection would be helpful. >>
Davies & Allison write:
<< KATAPATHSOUSIN presumably goes with 'swine,' hRHXWSIN with 'dog.' >>
But they don't offer anything to support such a statement (they merely
presume it). You write:
<< ... when other factors, such as the senses of KATAPATHSOUSIN and
hRHCWSIN, so indicate (as supported by Davies & Allison in their
magisterial commentary) ... >>
Do you have a different edition from mine? What do you find in this
magisterial commentary which convinces you that KATAPATHSOUSIN actually
goes with 'swine' and RHXWSIN only with 'dogs'? Both verbs seem to me to
fit pigs better than dogs. KATAPATEW mean to "trample down," and RHGNUMI
means to "break asunder, shatter." Both these actions appear to be more
fitting for pigs than dogs (or at least as fitting for pigs as they might
be for dogs). And while RHGNUMI might also mean "tear," a wild boar is
capable of tearing a person to bits.
(a) MH DWTE TO hAGION TOIS KUSIN
(b) MHDE BALHTE TOUS MARGARITAS hUMWN EMPROSQEN TWN COIRWN,
(c) MHPOTE KATAPATHSOUSIN AUTOUS EN TOIS POSIN AUTWN
(d) KAI STRAFENTES hRHXWSIN hUMAS (Mt 7:6).
The subject of the verbs at 6c and 6d are admittedly vague, but to whom or
to what do the "they" refer? Davis and Allison suggest that the "they" at
6c refers back to the pigs at 6b, and that the "they" at 6d refers back to
the dogs at 6a. How so? What clue is there in the Greek text which makes
this correlation obvious? There is nothing in the Greek text to support
such an interpretation. I truly do believe that Davies and Allison have
given us a magisterial commentary, but I find this section to be very weak.
They don't argue the point here, they merely present and assume.
There is nothing in the Greek text to indicate that the subject of 6c is
different from the subject of 6d. Normal Greek syntax would have one assume
that the subject is the same in both 6c and 6d. Does the word KAI normally
introduce a new subject? While the subject for 6cd is somewhat ambiguous,
the most natural reading of the Greek text would be that the subject of 6cd
is either the "pigs" alone, or both the "pigs" and the "dogs" together. I
know of no justification from Greek syntax to justify taking the subject of
6c to be the "pigs" and the subject of 6d to be the "dogs." There is
nothing in the Greek text to support such a reading.
Davies and Allison appear to have been seduced by the notion of a
"chiasmus," since there is nothing in the text which explicitly makes it
clear that a chiasmus is present at Mt 7:6. Once they line up the text in
this "a b b a" fashion, and once they have supplied (introduced without any
justification!) the subject "the swine" and "lest the dogs" into their
reading of the text, the Chiasmus appears all but obvious. And yet, they
don't offer anything to prove their point, they merely assume it.
Chiasmus is a familiar figure of speech in Greek speech. But none of the
grammars treat it as a type of Greek syntax. To assume that Mt 7:6 is a
Chiasmus is to override normal Greek syntax and to make the text say what I
serious doubt it is legitimate to have it say. There is no real Chiasmus at
Mt 7:6. In my opinion, the interpretation of Mt 7:6 as a Chiasmus is based
more on the creative imagination of scholars than on sober analysis of
Greek syntax.
-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
stevencraigmiller@home.com
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [abj@the-bridge.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:49 EDT